Nadim Akhtar Ashfaque Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra
2022 Latest Caselaw 2308 Bom

                                   1/2               27 BA 1953-19.doc


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
         CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1953 OF 2019

Nadim Akhtar Ashfaque Shaikh                .. Applicant
     Versus
The State of Maharashtra                    .. Respondent

                               ...
Mr. Aamir Sopariwala i/b Zara S. Salati for the applicant.
Smt.Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the State.

                   CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.

DATED : 8th MARCH, 2022 P.C:-

1 The learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra P. Gadling Vs. State of Maharashtra delivered in Criminal Application (BA) No.109 of 2020 dated 11th August, 2021. The Division Bench in the above decision has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2020) 10 SCC

616. It would be relevant to quote paragraphs 12 and 17 of the said decision, which read thus :-

"12] In our view, the judgment delivered in the case of Prakashan C (supra) is by two Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikramjit Singh (supra), being a judgment delivered by Larger Bench of three Judges of the

Tilak

2/2 27 BA 1953-19.doc

Apex Court, we are bound by the decision in the case of Bikramjit Singh (supra). We therefore hold that all Scheduled Offences i.e. all offences under the UAPA, whether investigated by the National Investigation Agency or by the investigating agencies of the State Government, are to be tried exclusively by Special Courts set up under that Act.

17] We are therefore of the view that the Court trying offences under second Schedule of the NIA Act being the Special Court as contemplated by Section 22 of the NIA Act, the person aggrieved by an order of refusing bail is required to file appeal under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act and the application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable before the High Court."

2 In the wake of the above, since the applicant is charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under MCOCA and also under Sections 18, 20, 23, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, the liberty is granted to the applicant to convert the application into an appeal under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act.

3 Upon the necessary steps being taken to the aforesaid effect, the appeal be placed before the appropriate Bench.

SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J

Tilak